Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:05, 15 September 2009

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Shortcuts

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:

1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.

2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.

3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.

Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.

To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:Asia Society Talk:Australian Maritime College Talk:AvePoint User talk:Beran-jale Talk:Carbfix Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Connections Academy Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Fundbox Talk:Globe Life Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Golden State Foods Talk:Gregmark Records Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Irish Cave Rescue Organisation Talk:JLL (company) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:List of sequence alignment software Talk:LPL Financial Talk:Moroccanoil Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Talk:Oneok Talk:Operation Santa Claus Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Pod Point Talk:Runner's World Talk:The Student Room Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Augusta Read Thomas

Possible autobiographies found by bot

User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Requested edits

Category:Requested edits. Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

Wayne Herschel

Resolved

– Article deleted at AfD. Arakunem^Talk 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Herschel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AstronomerPHD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As this is a slightly different issue I'm raising it in a separate section. This article keeps getting new users on its talk page saying how great he is. Now I've found this on Dan Brown's facebook page, a comment from Herschel:

"WIKIPEDIA WARS DAY 2 - AUTHOR AND SOLOMON KEY TO BE DELETED

If there are any wiki subscribers out there we need numbers... some have tried to help already but the manipulators there will not allow two important uploads complete the page to be an accep...table author page.

I have just been talking to Nirman... and he tried uploading my bio and periodical references as the wikipedia page requests and some malicious group is deleting them.

1)The two periodical references are on record here: http://www.thehiddenrecords.com/press_release.htm

2)Biography text http://www.wayneherschel.com

There is a full barage there of people (discussion page) manipulating the uploads that wiki are saying they need... any wiki members out there please can you intervene if possible. I am so tied up trying to save my book as well... I am not managing at all with this crazy stuff.

HERE IS THE CRAZY DISCUSSION PAGE... WHO CAN FIGURE A WAY TO FIX IT? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wayne_Herschel"

Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not good.... I put some words of wisdom on the talk page. If any of the facebook users can improve the article within the 5 Pillars, then great. I tried to paraphrase what it takes to do so... hope I wasn't too blunt. Arakunem^Talk 19:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they can't contribute positively and don't cooperate, it might be best to go to WP:RFPP and request semi-protection. These off-wiki "calls for help" usually lead to chaos in my experience so my hopes aren't high but it's best to give them a chance. -- Atama頭 19:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. We give them a chance, explaining exactly how to contribute productively. If it doesn't go well, then Semi-prot is definitely called for. Arakunem^Talk 19:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to report this situation. Looks like I got beat to the punch. I am concerned that Mr. Herschel has said on his talk page he has no intention of learning how to contribute effectively to Wikipedia.Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quote from his talk page. It is unsigned but it is Herschel speaking:

"It is you that are implying the issue. If it does not meet up with regulations will you please present a case for it be changed. It is a user name. I am author and not a computer programmer and do not intend trying to learn the ropes here, I am simply getting the page right and doing what is fair. I will proceed with caution and see that the said page follows all requirements. I am getting the feeling the deletion group involved so far with my work has a hidden agenda and I will need to follow up on any false information or malicious unverified deletions of important text is followed up and questioned as you question me, but with media that will be here on this site of the 15th September."

Bold for emphasis is mine.Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Leveque

Leveque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be Alain Leveque
Loulou 50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be Alain Leveque An older account he no longer uses.
58.175.169.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An ip address he's used.
58.175.170.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An ip address he's used.
Mauritius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rodrigues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Levenque is a WP:SPA. As Loulou 50 and through his initial edits as Levenque [1], he sought to incorporate published articles written by Alain Leveque into Wikipedia articles and use Wikipedia as a soapbox for his beliefs. After discussions (Talk:Rodrigues#Soapbox, User_talk:Leveque#History_of_Rodrigues, User_talk:Leveque#Mauritius) he changed his approach to spamming links to his articles instead, and was warned User_talk:Leveque#About_external_links. During this time, he also had discussions about his conflict of interest in Talk:Mauritius#Possible_conflict_of_interest and User_talk:Leveque#Original_Research.

All of that happened over two years ago. Since then he has continued to spam his article links, making accusations of vandalism when his links are removed. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

My recommendations:

Block Leveque for continued spamming against a conflict of interest after multiple warnings.
Erase both user pages (User:Leveque & User:Loulou_50) and User_talk:Loulou_50 per WP:UP and WP:SOAP.

--Ronz (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the conflict of interest. He's a self-promotional spam-only editor. You've offered a final warning, one more violation and report to WP:AIV. Be sure to link to his former account to have it blocked (so he doesn't use it for socking) and a link to this COI noticeboard report would be helpful too. I'd wait until his next violation before reporting, though, just to be sure, but I'm pretty confident that he'd be facing an indefinite block. -- Atama頭 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported him to AIV, mentioning that he's been adding these self-promotional links for years (at least as far back as 2007), mentioned his other account, and this COI noticeboard report. -- Atama頭 05:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll discuss this with the editor. Remember that AIV is only for simple, clear vandalism. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. WP:ANI would probably have been a better venue. Thank you for looking into this. -- Atama頭 17:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's added the link back three times since he was given a final warning. He's ignoring this report and the comments by Master of Puppets. Based upon this, I've reported him to AIV. If he's not blocked there, I'll post to ANI. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one day. Would be appropriate for blocks to increase dramatically if this continues. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cirt on this one, seeing that he outright ignored my attempt at conversation. Notify us if you see any socks being used to evade the block. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 01:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His response to the block:

"Block all you like. But no spiteful zealot will EVER stop me from adding a link about Rodrigues history to an entry about Rodrigues. To let you do that is to acknowledge that Wikipedia belongs to zealots like you."

It doesn't look like he used any sockpuppets during the block (I checked the articles he has edited before). -- Atama頭 20:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's back and immediately restored links to his articles. I've requested another block at AIV. --Ronz (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has pretty much promised to sock in the future. "We'll see how many people and how many computers you can block in the years ahead." -- Atama頭 18:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Enigmaman has renewed the block of Leveque through 14 September. I have not noticed any sock accounts evading this new block at either Mauritius or Rodrigues. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

124.148.141.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken up his editing and has been blocked. This ip doesn't fit the ones he's used in the past. Looks more like a meatpuppet. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mauritius article was also semi-protected as a result. The new IP resolves to Melbourne, Australia and the old ones resolved to Sydney. So it's possible that it's still him, it's not like the IPs are on different sides of the world. Sock or meatpuppetry, it's still a block evasion either way. -- Atama頭 18:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Transilluminate

Transilluminate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- very likely to be Brian Clarke (artist), hard at work fluffing up that page with unsourced material, has not heeded COI notice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are either the artist himself or a very dedicated fan (maybe PR person?). An avalanche of edits in the first day of the account, and all of them either editing the artist's page or adding info to other pages about the artist. I would say give them a chance to communicate, if they do, but if they don't they may be looking at a block sometime in the future. In the meantime we shouldn't treat them too harshly. -- Atama頭 22:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at the user's talk page? There have been multiple attempts to communicate, all ignored... thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are also most likely a brand-new user on a mistaken flurry of editing. The account was created earlier today and edited for about 7 hours and stopped. I don't know if they have ever looked at their user talk page. They've never made an edit outside of article space. That is why myself and NeilN urge a bit of caution per WP:BITE, there's no evidence so far of ill-intent. -- Atama頭 23:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some cleanup on the article and removed some spammy links. I also tagged it for copypaste since some of it seems to be lifted from other websites. Might be the individuals standard bio. Probably worth keeping an eye on but nothing showing signs of intentional abuse or gross negligence. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From this they have admitted to being "official employees" of Brian Clarke and asked for page protection to be established on Brian Clarke (artist) so that only they can edit it in the future. That request is the one and only time they've made any kind of communication with someone on Wikipedia that I can see. I think that WP:AGF has been stretched too far, plus they are violating WP:NOSHARE already by sharing the account so they're due for an indef block. I wonder if a WP:ANI report is necessary now. -- Atama頭 18:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ombudswiki

Resolved

– "Love is My Form " as it is presented, although seems suspicious, seems not to be a COIJ929 (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw readers' attention to the fact that User J929, in this grudging admission, has gratuitously maintained his/her still unsubstantiated innuendo that the biography Love is My Form , for which ample publishing details have been provided on the Sathya Sai Baba Discussion page, "seems suspicious". Ombudswiki (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onopearls states, "You accused him of having a Conflict of Interest due to his wanting to use Love is my Form as a source in the biography section, correct?" Not at all... the concern lies in a continually growing description of a biographical book in the biography section of Sathya Sai Baba. (where Sathya Sai Baba is no longer the subject, the book becomes the subject) It is not the book (or its publishing details) that generated concerned, it is its placement, the irrelevant facts (ie. how many times does is it mentioned the book is 600 pages) and lack of facts about Sai Baba (the subject of the article "Sathya Sai Baba") that seem to be 'out of context'.

hence "as it is presented", not the book itself. Thanks! J929 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ombudswiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ombudswiki is currently expanding on an edit about an autobiographical book "Love is My Form". His edits contain little direct biographic information on the subject, Sathya Sai Baba, yet the paragraph continues to grow with facts about the book. I have tried to add the informational to another section so it can be expanded on but he reverts it back to its previous edit and continues to elaborate. It seems suspicious to me and "does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."

Editor Onopearls states "I must agree that many of Ombudswiki's replies are somewhat condescending"^[1] Radiantenergy has already brought this issue for arbitration^[2]
Ombudswiki states his name as Brian Steel.^[3] Research on Google finds an anti Sai Baba writer named "Brian Steel" with many web pages http://www.briansteel.net/index.html
http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/storiesclaims08.htm

Both persons share an interest in Sathya Sai Baba, Spanish and share a similar online name ( his wiki name is Ombudswiki and the email address for Anti Sai Baba Brian steel is ompukalani@) Thank you.
J929 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the user and they wrote back on my talk page: Smartse (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello! Is this where I respond to your invitation for a comment?

In a complex series of tiring exchanges on the (endless) Sathya Sai Baba Discussion pages (14 Archives already), I have been trying to establish my right to be judged by what I publish on Wikipedia. On my User Page I choose voluntarily to offer my real name for anyone who wishes to check up on me.

Please ask the complainant (who has recently retracted unfounded charges of vandalism against me) to show, coherently and specifically, which of my postings on this Wikipedia article show clear evidence of COI.Ombudswiki (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

More background:

Recently, on the Discussion page and in the article, I presented information about an important 600 page biography of the early years of Sathya Sai Baba (published in 2001), which, although far more detailed than the first volume of the standard hagiography by N. Kasturi, has (inexplicably) not been considered for this article. When “challenged” by J929, I gave full publishing details and explained that this was part 1 of a planned series, researched by a team of devotees or sympathisers, headed by R.Padmanaban (SSB’s former photographer), which was intended to be the first of a long series on SSB’s life. When further challenged by J929 on who the researchers were, I posted the long list of researchers and collaborators and the (relevent) Acknowledgements from the book itself (on the SSB Discussion page). Instead of welcoming the new source of valuable information, J929 has continued to try to limit the coverage of this book to the Beliefs Section (rather than the Biography one, which is the logical place for it). To give an idea of the discussion exchanges between us, in a recent post I responded to his/her protests with the following:

J929: Can you please present more coherent points for consideration?

What are we to make of thoughts like the following? "the rest of the paragraph covers the number of proposed books and description such as "600 page volume", etc and who the published was. This doesnt seem like it is of a biography of Sathya Sai Baba." (Later you contradict yourself on this issue: "Love is My Form is a biography, i think we are in agreement on that."

And what does this mean?

"the paragraph as it is, discusses more on the "book" rather than the "biography". i dont think you have adressed this issue, as more alight to that the book is a biography." Have you had a look at a copy yet? Ombudswiki (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that a reading of the SSB Discussion page will confirm that J929’s contributions to this article (and another connected with SSB) include continual evasive, aggressive – and I think, unhelpful - replies and ploys on this and other topics). I suggest that J929 must now present a list of specific accusations of COI infringements which he has found in my Wikipedia contributions. Ombudswiki (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that there is a conflict of interest here. There is possibly a bias, but has Ombudswiki tried to link to his own web sites or anything he has published himself? Otherwise this just seems like a content dispute. -- Atama頭 18:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issues raised are in concern for the Sathya Sai Baba article.

In relation to my statement quoted in the discussion page, "This doesnt seem like it is of a biography of Sathya Sai Baba." The information Ombudswiki keeps expanding on ie. information on the 'Love is My Form' book, ie facts about where it was published, and as can be seen now on the Sai Baba page, several references to fact it is 600 pages long etc... ARE NOT A BIOGRAPHY. Facts about the subject, Sathya Sai Baba constitue biographical information. The book (although it is itself a biography) when elaborated on is NOT A BIOGRAPHY. this is what i meant in the provided quote, " this (information on the Love is My Form book) does not seem like a biography of Sai Baba"

i have tried to help Ombudswiki with edits and on good faith made changes requested by him (which were dictated by his opinion and no wikipedia body) only to be met with more complaints and patronising comments... Myself and other editors have been met with such comments as

" I applaud your willingness to cooperate in this matter "
"The extraordinary ad hominem allegations against the BBC by J929 and Sbs108 "
" ... offer here the necessarily lengthy answer to put his mind at rest "
"Perhaps the last three contributors (who seem to be both energetic and hasty)"
and more recently " continual evasive, aggressive "

Editor Onopearls states "I must agree that many of Ombudswiki's replies are somewhat condescending"

In reference to changes i made to his edits, they were to allow the subject (Love is My Form) to be expanded on in a different context. He made two points (about records and local knowledge about Shirdi Sai Baba) that directly linked to the biography section of the page. The rest is just information on the book itself. Based on his writings it seemed that there was alot of effort put into this book so i moved it to the "Beliefs and pratcises of Devotees" section and presented it as a form of devotion as the author himself wrote the book was his meditation, penance and prayer... Ombudswiki complained that the paragraph was "hijacked" and rewrote the paragraph and continued to write more. (and at the same time deleted my paragraph concerning the book, although my edits did not need his work to remain.)

Again he states, "Have you had a look at a copy yet?" Why all the refernce to one book. Read it, get the relevant information and write those findings in the biography section on the Sathya Sai Baba page. This is why i wrote, "It seems suspicious to me and "does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."" No content has been added from the book. You can't go to a restaurant and eat the menu. (well, maybe you can...)

My concerns were further raised when research into his name found many anti Sai Baba writings, blogs and websites associated with the person "Brian Steel". Ombudswiki's name is also Brian Steel. Is this a coincidence? If Ombudswiki is the same Anti Sai Baba writer, Brian Steel, then a concern arises for his neutrality on the edits he provides.

His edits (and behavior) "does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."

As per his request...

Wikipedia states.. "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Brian Steel belongs to a group of anti Sai Baba writers and Ex-devotees, ie Robert Priddy etc... see web apges for links to each other. This group has an agenda and it is clear. How can they then profess to write in a "neutral tone" for the Sai Baba page.
Please also note the dischord on the Sathya Sai Baba discussion pages, it seems a reflection of these 'agendas'. This is also in conflict with wikipedia policy "When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked." This can be seen now in the current state of editing on the Sathya Sai Baba page. Is erasing my contribution on 'Love is My Form' as a devotional work a "disruption"?
" Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested" Ombudswiki has stated his name, but not his interets. ie does he host several anti Sai Baba websites? if yes, then a Conflict of Interest becomes clear. as seen with his writing, attitude (as editor Onopearls states "I must agree that many of Ombudswiki's replies are somewhat condescending") and, as wikipedia states, "interests."

The Wikipedia Sathya Sai Baba page is a 'Biography Of Living Persons' [WP:BLP] the respect of/to the subject should be maintained, not the interests "of other individuals, companies, or groups."

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." as Wikipedia states, "We must get the article right."

I hope i have adressed all the relevant concerns...

J929 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am an uninvolved editor. I have not (as I recall) ever edited the Sathya Sai Baba page and have no vested interest. If I may venture an opinion I see J929 (talk · contribs) who appears to be a Sathya Sai Baba WP:SPA account upset over potentially controversial edits made by Ombudswiki (talk · contribs), who appears to edit a broad variety of subjects. Looking over the edit history I wouldn't necessarily have made the same edits as Ombudswiki but I see no compelling evidence of a COI.Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Brian Steel belongs to a group of anti Sai Baba writers and Ex-devotees, ie Robert Priddy etc... see web apges for links to each other. This group has an agenda and it is clear." Again, is Ombudswiki linking to his own sites? If not, I don't see what the COI is here. COI does not mean having a bias. Is Ombudswiki directly promoting a particular group that he belongs to? That is what the portion of WP:COI that you quoted above refers to. Or do you suspect there is such a group in existence because he shares the views of other editors? It looks to me like you've confused WP:COI and WP:NPOV which is a common mistake to make. The purpose of identifying a COI is to show that there is a reason to doubt that an editor is trying to get some sort of personal gain out of editing Wikipedia, whether that be through financial gain or general promotion. But everyone has biases and we don't take the time to note every single bias every editor has. I played World of Warcraft for a long time, and I'm a fan of the game, do I have a conflict of interest regarding the edits I've made to that article? I would hope not. If I were to mention my former guild in the article or try to link to their web site, that would be a COI.

If you feel that Brian is trying to insert bias into the article, then that is a violation of Wikipedia policies and should be reported to the POV noticeboard. But as long as he's not promoting himself or some other "group" in the article I don't see the COI. -- Atama頭 21:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the clarification. i will look into the POVN noticeboard... i do have a question... Wikipedia states "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested" If Ombudswiki is the same Brian Steel; who holds multiple websites with Anti Sai Baba views, and does as Wikipedia asks and declares who he is, (on his user page and the Sathya Sai Baba discussion page) with relation to his websites) then will a COL exist? to what extent can an editor be asked to "declare their interests"? If Ombudswiki says he operates the anti Sai Baba sites, then is that a COL by affiliation or does he have to actually state his own website on his user page?

J929 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." You are asking if Brian says that he owns and operates anti-sai websites that he has not attempted to promote in any way on any of the Sai articles, that will make him have a Conflict of Interest? No. "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Can you offer any proof where Brian has attempted to advance an outside interest? I don't believe so. His edits to the article are, from what I have seen, adequately neutral. His edits on the talk page, while condescending, are not proof of a CoI either. Without any actual proof, I would be inclined to agree with the other editors in that Brian Steel, aka Ombudswiki, does not have a Conflict of Interest on this article. That being said, if you believe he is editing without a NPOV, I would take it up with the NPOV noticeboard. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 23:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." i'm saying if he runs the anti Sai Baba sites, does he have to "declare ..his.. interests" ie that he is already associated to Sathya Sai Baba by running an entire website with Sathya Sai Baba as the subject and he himself having written several books on Sai Baba. (it seems safe to say he has made some money off Sai Baba with book sales)
Three names seem to be linked with the anti Sai Baba sites, Brian Steel, Robert Priddy and Barry Pittard. Does that constitue a "group" with "interests". Personally i would say 'yes'.
They are linked as seen in ProEdits latest contribution, citing http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/bbcbroadcastsecretswami.html as a source. Closer inspection finds that the site is authored by Barry Pittard. Essentially one of them can author a page and the other can site it as a source to write in wikipedia. That seems like a 'group' with an 'interest' or 'agenda'. (and a means to propogate their views.
So with that as an example 'groups with interests can edit --without declaring their interests--a Wikipedia article'
The fact that 2 of these 3 writers are known to be active on the Sathya Sai Baba page seems like "promote(ing) your own interests."
"When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view..." i agree Ombudswiki does not cause the disruption ProEdits does (ie rewriting the BBc paragraph although it has already been deemed a BLP violation), but patronising words do not induce harmony. Both are linked outside of Wikipedia and together use Sai Baba as a subject to promote their own interests.
As Brian Steel states in his blog, "This only leaves me, and you, ... alongside those millions who have preceded us and already tried to stake their claim for public attention. Others can remain aloof for a while longer if they wish, but I have finally decided, after dragging my feet for a year or more ...that I may as well keep up with the cyberJoneses by joining in this colossal competition for attention." A competition for attention seems like an agenda and his user page does say, "waste decent contributors' time and energy on unnecessary edit wars... sometimes in the cause of propaganda - or just for fun"
i dont feel the Sathya Sai Baba site should be a forum for 'attention seeking' editors, in whatever medium they strive for it ie. comments about other editors, "hasty, agressive"..., as a individual or a group.

J929 (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer any proof that the three men mentioned above have had any contact with each other outside of Wikipedia, or that they have some sort of elaborate system in which they cite the websites of the others in Wikipedia in some sort of scheme to discredit Sathya Sai Baba? I highly doubt that. Wikipedia is not in the business of jumping to conclusions when there is no evidence.

"The fact that 2 of these 3 writers are known to be active on the Sathya Sai Baba page seems like 'promote(ing) your own interests.'" The mere fact that they are active in editing the articles is inconsequential. "Both are linked outside of Wikipedia and together use Sai Baba as a subject to promote their own interests." And the key word there? outside Wikipedia.

"joining in this colossal competition for attention." A competition for attention seems like an agenda" I did not see any mention of using :Wikipedia to seek attention. I seek attention outside of Wikipedia on occasion. Does that make me have an agenda? I don't think so.

It appears that you are attempting to get an editor that has done nothing wrong punished and/or banned from editing the SSB article because you disagree with his work outside of Wikipedia. This is not how Wikipedia works, and bringing up false accusations (as I have become convinced that this is) to do so constitutes WP:Harassment, and is not tolerated. I would also remind you that this CoI section is about Ombudswiki (Brian Steel), Not ProEdits (Robert Priddy). So please stick to offering some evidence other than speculation that proves that he does indeed have a CoI. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 22:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Can you offer any proof that the three men mentioned above have had any contact with each other outside of Wikipedia".... found on brian steels's website...http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/ "NOTE: A HUGE CORNUCOPIA of mind-boggling up-to-date revelations and links about SSB are available on the principal website of ex-devotee and ex-SSO official ROBERT PRIDDY." and robert priddy's website is directly linked. more links to robert priddy's anti Sai Baba page and barry prittard are found on... http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/internetpropaganda_jm.htm

found on http://robertpriddy.wordpress.com/ there is a link to "Brian Steel’s researches on SSB’s claims" do you think they have randomly linked each other's websites up?

these links are a relation and a form of contact.

is this the information you asked for?

"I did not see any mention of using :Wikipedia to seek attention.." also on brian steels website. http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/wikissbbs.htm
"Unofficial Addendum to the Wikipedia article on Sathya Sai Baba"
is this a view of how things "should" be on wikipedia?

if expanding a section about a biographical book in a biography section is not a COI, thats fine. although i do feel it "does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."
Other editors have also expressed concerns about problems with groups pushing their POV in the article. To describe the book "Love is my Form" as part of the biography, i felt (and still do feel), was a part of that, much like Robert Priddy continually rewriting up the BBC section.

Thanks!

J929 (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"do you think they have randomly linked each other's websites up?" Considering the relatively small base for people with sites against SSB, and considering these three men appear to be some of the most vocal of those, it's plausible to believe that yes, they did have outside links to other anti-Sai websites ran by the others. You are offering strictly circumstantial evidence that proves nothing other than that they have links to one another's site on their own pages.

"joining in this colossal competition for attention." A competition for attention seems like an agenda", "I did not see any mention of using :Wikipedia to seek attention.." Then what were you implying? This entire section is over Ombudswiki having an conflict of interest/agenda on Wikipedia. Why did you mention that if you were not referring to using Wikipedia to seek attention to further their Agenda?

"is this a view of how things "should" be on wikipedia?" The article was published in 2005, first off. So using it as evidence (of what?) when Ombudswiki didn't start consistently editing the page until 2009 makes no sense. For "is this a view of how things "should" be on wikipedia?", I saw nothing on the page that asserts that this is how he believes that Wikipedia "should" be, nor does it imply that he plans to make any edits to the Wikipedia that would be pushing a POV.

Again, it would be beneficial if you can provide actual evidence (differences for example) that clearly prove that he is editing with a Conflict of Interest. He has made few edits to the article in question, and it seems that he has actually taken special care to not become involved closely in the article so as to ensure that he doesn't start pushing a POV.

You accused him of having a Conflict of Interest due to his wanting to use Love is my Form as a source in the biography section, correct? To solve this problem, take the book to the Reliable Source Notice Board to get a definitive answer. If they say that it is a reliable source, you all may work together to reach an agreement on what parts of the book may be used as a source. If it is not, he will have to drop the subject and the case will be closed. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to give my support to Onopearls and to the resolved tag above. For a good example of what is a COI on this exact same issue, see ProEdits below, where an editor is linking to his own web site in an article. -- Atama頭 20:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i did not add a COI about using the book, 'Love is My Form" (as i have stated several times) and feel it is a good source. The concern lies in its use in the article itself. Like i said it is like going to a restaurant and trying to eat the menu. the menu shows one whats there and is not itself edible, much like the way the book is described. it adds no relevant facts about Sathya Sai Baba but only goes on about who published it and the number of pages... he offers two issues concerned with Sai Baba(one of records and another of local knowledge of Shirdi Sai Baba) the rest of it describes the book itself... please dont lead the topic by infering what i meant? if you dont understand, ask... i did in no way say he is in COI for using the book...

Onopearls, you said he wasnt linked to the other anti sai Baba sites "Can you offer any proof that the three men mentioned above have had any contact with each other outside of Wikipedia, or that they have some sort of elaborate system in which they cite the websites of the others in Wikipedia in some sort of scheme to discredit Sathya Sai Baba? I highly doubt that. "

do emails constitue "contact"?

Barry Pittard states on his website he received an email from Brian Steel.

http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/

"and also since noted that Brian D. Steel has very recently amended two articles to include, as he notes in an email, “references to three more of Kevin R.D. Shepherd’s contributions, the latest from his splendid new website”" and continues to provide a link to the new information...

and further more states in http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/brian-d-steel-updates-references-to-kevin-r-d-shepherd-writings/ "Brian D.Steel, who has written in-depth on matters of Sathya Sai Baba-related bibliography, has just sent a note. I think that these references below can be read as a resource in company with my blog of yesterday: Kevin R.D. Shepherd Exposes Sathya Sai Baba Defender Gerald Moreno

Brian Steel writes:

I have just amended 2 articles to include references to 3 more of Kevin R.D. Shepherd’s contributions, the latest from his splendid new website: http://www.kevinrdshepherd.info -"
Barry Pittard states he received 'a note' from Brian Steel.

note, Barry Pittard refers to the Sathya Sai Baba former devotee sites "primary writers such as Robert Priddy, Brian Steel and myself (Barry Pittard)." and "uncovered evidence that was beyond the range of internationally networked former devotees" ( http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/12/ )

these 'authors' link to each others websites, send information to each other via emails and notes and quote each others' websites in their wikipedia edits. (i know the editor in this discussion is Ombudswiki, but he is linked to the other editors through his websites)) Proedits, Robert Priddy in his last edit used a source from Barry Pittard's website. Does this constitute "some sort of elaborate system in which they cite the websites of the others in Wikipedia" i would say yes... are these "false accusations"?

you asked for this information, Onopearls, what do you suggest?

Barry Pittard states, "(–(Brian) Steel has been able to expose Sai Baba’s astounding array of self-generated myths, failed predictions, incorrect scientific and historical references, and, all in all, a seemingly endless series of contradictions and anomalies, as well as a great deal of highly flawed hagiography." ( http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/12/ ) is his elaboration on 'Love is My Form" a continuation of this? if it is, he should simply state the discrepencies. (and not who the publisher was or how many pages it has)...

"as long as he's not promoting himself or some other "group" in the article I don't see the COI"
thank you for the clarification...

J929 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mcarter13, Artery Foundation and their clients

Mcarter13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Artery Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - deleted G11
List of Artery Foundation artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - PRODded
Artery Tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - deleted G11
Broadway (FL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - deleted A7
Kingdoms (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - redirected to Broadway (FL) and deleted G8
The Color Morale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - at AfD here.
We All Have Demons (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - deleted A9
Of Mice & Men (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - deleted A7

This user has input Artery Foundation, described as an artist management label, and a list of their clients, and now appears, despite a COI warning, to be steadily adding articles about their, mostly non-notable, clients. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are spam as far as I can tell. I tagged them and their list for speedy. Rees11 (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User was given a level 4 warning yesterday and has not edited since. Once the last two articles are deleted, maybe problem over. JohnCD (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I don't think the two remaining articles are likely to be speedied. List of Artery Foundation artists doesn't seem to fit G11 because it's nothing but a list of artists, there's nothing overtly promotional about it. In The Color Morale they claim to be in an upcoming national tour, so they would be ineligible for deletion per A7. I expect you'll need to either prod or AfD those articles. -- Atama頭 19:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an unsourced claim that they will be part of someone else's tour as a supporting act; that doesn't meet WP:BAND #4 - I suppose it might lift them out of A7 - we'll see what an admin thinks. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you're right, Atama: I have PRODded one and AfD-ed the other. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:ProEdits

ProEdits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User ProEdits states on his user page, "I am the webmaster for the following site:" http://robertpriddy.com and also http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/ and the blog robertpriddy.wordpress.com Anyone interested can view the Wiki biographical page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Priddy" Robert Priddy is well known (and vocal) about his anti Sai Baba views. (as stated in the web sites) He edits for the Sathya Sai Baba page. With such a negative opinion how can edits be considered "neutral"? (as seen in his latest edits. Adding material about the BBC, after it had been deemed a BLP violation and removing information from a source, which he says "is a pro-Sai site full of massive attacks on critics" yet if he is a critic then there is an "agenda") Using information from his website has been banned. Why then is he allowed to directly write for the Wikipedia Sathya Sai Baba page? The concern is his "agenda", and does that conflict with the goals/interests of Wikipedia?

J929 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J929, it seems you understand little about neutrality. A person can be neutral on many issues but biased on others. There is something knowm as freedom of speech, which also has relevance for Wikipedia no less, when that freedom is exercised with full grounding and source references, as I have done. You exercise your freedom of speech to show you are very clearly biased against me and other reasonable and measured critics of Sathya Sai Baba such as Andries and Ombudswiki. Your bias is witnessed by your massive pro-Sai baba editing and removals of ad much critical material as you presumably think will stand. I think the Sathya Sai baba page is far, far worse in its adulatory attitude than it ever was, and it will hardly ever be accepted as 'objective' when you have added links to so many subjective pro-Sai websites.ProEdits (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the fact information from your own site is not allowed on the Sathya Sai Baba page and then removing sources with critical views on critics consistitues an agenda. The sources you removed were not deemed inappropriate by any wikipedia body. so it is your opinion at work and we all know what that is. how is that neutral? please explain...
which pro Sai Baba websites are you refering to? i rewrote any edits of mine that refered directly to those sites. any content you removed was not from me.

J929 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You exercise your freedom of speech to show you are very clearly biased against me" may i point out you run an entire website to crticising Sathya Sai Baba, a living person...

J929 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't so much a COI issue as POV. I suggest you both stop the personal attacks and concentrate on the article. Stick to reliable secondary sources, no blogs or web sites that are not owned by mainstream news organizations. Remember, everyone has a POV, and that's ok. The problem arises when POV sneaks in to the article. Rees11 (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J929: Some clarification of my position is clearly called for, so I reply. I am opposed to Sathya Sai Baba nowadays because I personally know young men who told me in detail how he abused them - including oral sex - and was implicated in the decisions to murder four intruders to his bedroom in 1993 and in the cover-up afterwards. I cannot doubt all this, though I dearly wished to doubt, having been a devotee of Sai Baba for 18 years, wrote many positive articles and a book about him and was the leader of the Sathya Sai Organization in Norway until 2000. You evidently would expect me to keep silent about this? That he is a living person does not absolve him from all criticism, when he is so notable as he is. My websites mostly contain critical analysis of his massive claims and his entire 'teachings' and shown that they are very largely bogus in that they are vague, conflict internally on countless issues and contain totally absurd ideas about science, history and religions, despite his massive claims of being omnipotent and much more. ProEdits (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProEdits is continuing to rebuild a segment of the article that has already be deemed a BLP violation... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question At what point does a POV become a COI?

Thanks for your time...

J929 (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Radiantenergy:

User:ProEdits is no one other than Robert Priddy. His contributions and his userpage serves as evidence to this fact.
Next question is Who is Robert Priddy?

Robert Priddy owns negative defamatory attack websites on Sathya Sai Baba in the web and he is ex-follower of Sathya Sai Baba.

Robert Priddy websites were banned by Second arbitration commitee. They stated the following

Arbitration commitee stated that "Priddy maintains several web sites: http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/index.html is a conventional author's web site with links to many of Priddy's works. http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ titled SATHYA SAI BABA stories, myths and deceits http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/ and http://home.no.net/abacusa/ are attack sites containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research.". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy

The same 'Robert Priddy' whose websites were banned by second arbitration commitee is edit-warring and causing disruption to the article. His WP:COI with the subject 'Sathya Sai Baba' is well-known. Why is he allowed to edit the Sathya Sai Baba article?.
The following evidence to show his disruption to the article several times in the last 2 weeks trying to push his negative agenda on Sathya Sai Baba into the article.

Robert Priddy has been edit-warring and trying to add more and more defamatory material from old 2004 BBC documentary inspite of the WP:RS board here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question declaring the BBC material should be removed as its a clear BLP violation to the subject - Sathya Sai Baba.
As per the WP:RS recommendation I removed unneccessary gossip and presented BBC material in neutral tones but Priddy has been adding back more and more defamatory material from the BBC and there by clearly and repeatedly violating WP:RS decision again and again.
Robert Priddy editing is definitely detrimental to this article due to his strong WP:COI with the subject Sathya Sai Baba. Please also note that this article already went through 2 arbitrations and may likely go into third arbitration if his edit-warring and disruption don't stop.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to answer this question, "At what point does a POV become a COI?" The answer is, never. While WP:COI and WP:NPOV are related they are distinctly different. Wikipedia's NPOV policy relates to editing an article to insert bias, either negative or positive, and applies to the actions of any editor. The COI policy relates to an editor who is editing in a manner that provides a conflict of interest because of their relation to the article subject or their edits. A conflict of interest is just a way of identifying when an editor might possibly be editing Wikipedia with ulterior motives because they might get some personal gain out of it (generally of either a financial or promotional nature). Often a person with a COI does have a particular POV when they edit, but there is no point that a POV "becomes" a COI. There seems to be some assumption that a COI is just a strong POV but that's not the case, in fact while a COI can often be harmless, editing to promote a POV is always negative. There is a noticeboard for NPOV violations that is separate from this one.

~~Also, if this editor has been editing in violation of ArbCom restrictions, WP:AE is the place to report those violations.~~ In this case, if Proedits is Robert Priddy then there is a COI because he is adding links to his own writings which could be seen as self-promotion. ~~But I would recommend arbitration enforcement instead of reporting it here, because I believe that violating ArbCom restrictions is a more serious problem.~~ -- Atama頭 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, effort and advice...

J929 (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'd like to offer the latest edit from PoEdits citing the source http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/bbcbroadcastsecretswami.html for validity. Please note ex-baba in the title...
Wikipedia policy states to "produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia"
If edits with such sources that state "Don’t miss the chance to see it and, above all, to record it!!!" are allowed (from a Wikipedia editor with ties to anti Sai Baba websites) can Wikipedia policy be upheld?

J929 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the reference is that the BBC is airing a documentary called "the Secret Swami" that would be a RS. There was certainly nothing particularly pro or anti-sai baba on that website.Simonm223 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please reduce the website address and something begins to become apparent...
http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/

it says...

Barry Pittard
Related
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/shortnews/foetus.html http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/80bdayanand.htm
the article is by Barry Pittard , another known anti Sai Baba writer... (At Call For Media and Government Investigation of Sathya Sai Baba. http://barrypittard.wordpress.com )
the page is further linked to another anti Sai Baba site (under Brian Steel)

further more the entire page is from http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/ an anti Sai Baba site...
this was all added by Robert Priddy who holds his own anti Sai Baba websites, which are linked to Brian Steel and Barry Pittard. Wikipedia BLP "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"
is this edit using wikipedia as the "primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"? how can the source be reliable if one anti Sai Baba writer (Robert Priddy) simply quotes another 'friends' anti Sai Baba website?
what about this 'editing' does wikipedia policy adhere to? J929 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked farther into the prior arbitration cases. Recently, Radiantenergy had requested enforcement on ArbCom sanctions regarding ProEdit's usage of sources, but it was ruled that the ArbCom case he supposedly violated had no sanctions. The original case similarly had no sanctions. That means there's effectively no way to violate ArbCom sanctions, because there aren't any on that article despite having been through 2 different requests for arbitration. The only actions that resulted from either case were topic bans against certain editors (and ProEdit was not topic-banned). So mentioning arbitration sanctions here in this discussion is incorrect and should be avoided (I'd even go so far as to recommend striking out such suggestions above, as I have done).

I'd like to repeat that ProEdits should not be adding links to his (Robert Priddy's) web sites. That is a clear conflict of interest and is essentially self-promotion. I would like to also add that the second ArbCom case declared that some of Priddy's sites are attack sites containing lots of unverified original research and opinion, which further strengthens the argument that those sites should not be linked to. -- Atama頭 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, Thanks for explaining all the rules however I still have some questions and I will appreciate your response.

In the future, if an user / activist seriously disrupts the Sathya Sai Baba article due to their WP:COI with the subject what can be done?

Can other editors appeal for amendments to the second arbitration rulings requesting sanction on that disruptive editor?
My second question is if that's the case then which forum should be used for requesting amendments to the second arbitration rulings or for requesting sanctions on disruptive users - WP:AE or Is there any special forum for such requests?

I will definitely appreciate your response to these questions. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are serious disruptions then those should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Spamming, WP:BLP violations, edit-warring, etc. are all different problems that have different remedies. Spamming, for example, should be dealt with by warning the editor with escalating warnings which can eventually result in a WP:AIV report, which can then lead to blocks (possibly indefinite blocks). There is a BLP noticeboard that can help with such problems as defamation or bad sourcing in a BLP. Edit-warring should be dealt with by trying to get the editor to discuss things on the talk page instead of reverting, and violating WP:3RR can be reported at WP:AN3, but be careful not to violate the three-revert-rule yourself (I myself rarely revert more than once and never revert more than twice as a personal rule). But essentially, the COI itself is more of a footnote for the editor to bring up when other violations occur.

Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution. Dispute resolution occurs when 2 or more editors disagree on the content of an article and can't compromise. There are many steps used to resolve such conflicts, including asking for a 3rd opinion from someone uninvolved with editing the article, making a general request for comments from uninvolved editors, asking for informal and formal mediation, etc. When all else fails you go to arbitration which is like Wikipedia court. The Arbitration Committee makes rulings based on the evidence and arguments provided. If the arbitration remedies seem to be insufficient to fix the problem you can make a request at arbitration enforcement to extend or amend the remedies, but the last arbitration case for this subject was well over 2 years ago. I think you'd be better off requesting another case, but again those cases are not accepted unless all other dispute resolution steps have been attempted and failed. -- Atama頭 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI issue

User:Parellic acknowledges he is Michael Smith, also posting to Usenet as Mike Smith with the email address "parellic@". Most of his edits relate to John Alexander Symonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He appears to have RL connections with the subject (both spying and interest in police corruption, see here for example). I have looked over the Symonds article and removed anything which dod not seem to me to be directly supported by the sources. Guy (Help!) 07:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you didn't actually revert any of Parellic's edits (though I myself did, he made a somewhat random rename to a category which broke the link, I fixed it back). So I don't see that you're disputing any of his actual edits. I believe that you've properly identified why Parellic might have an interest in the article, but you haven't shown any conflict of interest. While Parellic may have had a life experience similar to Mr. Symonds I don't see what the conflict is supposed to be... That he might have a positive bias because he empathizes with him? If so, that's a real stretch and I don't think it even comes close to any of the suggestions at WP:COI. If anything, it just shows that Parellic might be the best sort of person to edit this kind of article because he has some experties (as long as he stays away from original research). -- Atama頭 22:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi COI - how do we move forward

Without rehashing the whole debate again - It is clear that user Benjiboi has a clear conflict of interest on a number of articles and has been using wikipedia in a promotional manner - two of which are going to be deleted via AFD and do not need to be discussed further. There are also problems with Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence which needs eyes and checking to ensure that the material is not promotional and the sources are good. Indeed, Benjiboi's first edits were promotional/COI as they relate to promoting themselves and this was back in 2006 - so eyes are need to check articles they have contributed to significantly and ensure that they are COI free. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What problems are there with Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence regarding a COI? I don't think a person's edits that are over 3 years old are relevant to the noticeboard. Alleging a COI and not providing any support for it isn't all that helpful. And yes, I'm personally aware of who Benjiboi is, I doubt too many regular editors wouldn't be, but I'm wondering what the specific complaints are. If you don't want to "rehash the whole debate" why post here? -- Atama頭 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That the article references his activity in his Sister personia, has photos of him stuck all over it (that he uploaded), has a sister talkpage where when the conflict of interest was raised and quickly removed by him, under an edit summary of formatting - I dunno I guess it's all in my head and it's not even worth checking to see if there are problems with the article or his other edits. Naw, let's just assume with two promotional articles about to be deleted that he was acting like the driven snow on the third. Let's not bother seeing what else he was upto in the last three years when his first edits here were promotional - I'm sure it's all fine and not worth looking into. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're saying "I think this guy has a COI, please look at everything he's ever done with a fine-toothed comb". Generally noticeboards don't work that way, COI or others. You provide diffs or give some other evidence to make your case. If you're asking for help you're doing a pretty poor job of it with the tone you've taken. -- Atama頭 01:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, containing notices for general attention is how noticeboards often work. If you want something specific to get your teeth into, then start by reviewing the discussion in the archives of this very noticeboard, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 20#R Family Vacations, in light of the independent assertions of a conflict of interest that have now been made, and that cannot be summarily dismissed as the activity of a "stalker" as was the case before.
      And when you're done with that, try looking at Talk:Hot House Entertainment#Sources press release where you'll find completely overlooked by the regular editors of the article (q.v.) and talk page (q.v.) a note that most of the content of the article is copied verbatim from a press release. Uncle G (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That issue was raised two years ago, since then there have been a lot of edits, and some non internal sources added, but the article still reads like a press release. I am tempted to suggest stubbing it down to the original short mention of the existence of the org and urging that it be carefully rebuilt, omitting most of the blog and internal site citations... ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, first off, when starting threads about another editor on an admin board you should notify them. Secondly, you're assuming you know my identity and this seems to be entirely based on a Wikipedia Review posting deliberately intended to reveal my identity - they just might have their facts wrong but based on this drama I'll likely change my username to help ease the drama. Third, thank you Uncle G, unfortunetly that blows my cover for neither confirming nor denying if I'm a paid editor but, oh well, it does show a pattern of harassment against me and; in that case other editors cleaned up, I think, one reference in the R Family Vacations article. That same IP had harassed me on the Sister Roma article which several of us essentially rewrote from scratch to ed the drama. I think they went on to harass another editor at Michael Lucas; I believe they were targeting her article more than me but we may never know. The current case might be targeting the Sister Kitty article rather than me as well but I really don't care. As for the press release bits on the Hot House article? You'll likely find I didn't add those but did try to fix them. I think this is Atama's point and if not consider it my point. Please demonstrate what content is actually COI-affected rather than generalizing user x is bad. -- Banjeboi 12:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point was that saying a person has a COI and offering practically nothing to support it is useless endeavor. Don't expect people to somehow know all the background to a case, or to spend hours searching for it. Notices come and go on this board and if you don't take the time to actually present a case, expect to be ignored.

Now, this is obviously a contentious case so I expect this thread to get long, be full of wikidrama and probably not lead anywhere. But for now I'm not taking sides either way. -- Atama頭 17:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the actual problem is rather negligible since two offending articles which Benjiboi has admitted were probably created in error are being deleted and there is given no evidence of obvious COI conflicting material at the other articles mentioned. The only possible problem lie in the realm of theory, namely in speculations about whether Benjiboi has a conflict of interest in certain areas that they edit, and if they have how they will manage such hypothetical conflicts in the future. Now frankly such speculation isn't really productive or necessary since the future will inevitably give us the answer - if Benjiboi does not edit in a manner that would suggest to us that they have a COI and are unable to manage it correctly then we can conclude that there is no problem - if a problem arises then we can act. Now, it would be wonderfully easy if Benjiboi would simply disclose whether a COI might arise, but he is not obligated to do so - and in fact it is much more useful if they simply show by their actions that they do not or that they can manage any conflicts of interest they might have in accordance with the NPOV policy. In short I believe no action of any kind is either called for or warranted - and that we should simply move along and see what the future will show us.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slut Night seems to be headed toward deletion. Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. looks to be possibly headed for no consensus (that's my guess at least), and then there's DJ Pusspuss which also seems to be in doubt (again, my speculation). But that still leaves Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence which isn't up for deletion at all, and there are COI concerns there. So while I haven't taken a side and I don't know if I want to become part of this controversial debate (call me a wimp if you want) I don't know that it's resolved. -- Atama頭 00:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, I was agreeing with you but perhaps I worded it poorly. Maunus, just to clarify I think that both subjects were/are notable but were written poorly, which is of course fixable, and in the DJ one, sourced below current standards. Back in 2006 adding multitudes of external links seemed acceptable. I obviously wouldn't do that anymore. Vague accusations of COI aren't helpful. {{COI}} is a clean-up template not a badge of shame as Cameron Scott seems to be applying it. If there are NPOV or sourcing issues then simply state what they are. Given the hostility it would be rather foolish for anyone to add anything that isn't strongly sourced to any of these articles. Not sure how Slut night figures into the current COI accusations but it's likely being deleted so I'm not it matters either. For the record I didn't create that article or the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence one but greatly overhauled each being led by the sourcing. On the Slut Night one the website where most of the main articles about the subject is seen as SPS. If I had known that at the time I wouldn't have bothered trying to save it from deletion. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not attempting to make vague accusations - I was suggesting that the best attitude towards the accusations already made were to assume the best and leave the issue as long as noone has evidence that a COI is causing specific concerns for wikipedias integrity, which doesn't seem to be the case now. In short at present I don't currently care about whether you have a COI - but I would if your editing at anytime became disruptive or otherwise threatening to the encyclopedias integrity - stressing that I have no reason to believe that it will.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Cameron Scott's accusations, he's maligned me all over the place, this is but one example. And I very much appreciate your take, I tend to agree. I'm definitely concerned if there are COI issues on any article but thousands of editors tend to fix those to trim off puffery and add in NPOV where it's lacking. To me, even if someone is obviously COI they must be treated civilly. This has proved to be quite the tour through drama past, much of these incidents I had completely forgotten about. At one point I thought of creating a list of people I've been accused of but still feel it's a bit of a waste of energy. -- Banjeboi 02:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you refrain from editing articles where you have a COI or highlight that COI to others? enough of the weasel answers, let's get a straight yes or no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Since you're not willing to clarify whether there is or isn't a conflict of interest (and you don't have to reveal information about yourself that would clear it up unless you want to, that's a tenet of how things are done here) but since there has been an ongoing pattern of edits from you that fit those that someone with a conflict of interest would make, which you yourself have admitted, we should take a page from WP:MEAT and treat the matter as if a conflict of interest existed, whether it does or not. What matters more than whether there is or isn't one is whether the edits are objective and well sourced. Although I haven't exhaustively checked every contribution, I'm not sure all of your edits, even all of your recent ones, are. I'm sorry to say it but you still write like you have something to promote. ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I pick up my torch and pitchfork? user:J aka justen (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Smallbones, your hostility is alarming and unhelpful. Anyone who starts on Wikipedia generally starts in one subject area and grows from there. That I also worked on Sister Roma who works at Hot House Entertainment, etc etc really that surprising? No. This board isn't for witch-hunting. If you actually can show COI content it would go a long way to constructively fixing it. As for everyone else, this is but a fraction of the heat i got for participating at WP:Paid; sadly my cover is blown as I'm not a paid editor but that hasn't deterred the harassment. The hostility from both Cameron Scott and Smallbones is a perfect example of why paid editors and COI editors are likely to stay hidden and underground. We can do better than this. Focus on the content. While Cameron Scott is gleefully deleting material that they think isn't sourced they are missing that it's all likely true and verifiable. I encourage others to review the behaviours of all involved here not just their idea of WP:The Truth of they think is my identity. -- Banjeboi 22:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not where the situation actually stands. The situation actually stands at this point:
- Benjiboi denied any financial interests two years ago on this very noticeboard and has confirmed that to still be the situation here in this very discussion only a day or so ago, albeit that xyr intention is to take the position entirely supported by Wikipedia:Outing policy of neither confirming nor denying assertions as to xyr identity.
- It has been pointed out that the editors with the quite apparent and unconcealed conflicts of interest at Hot House Entertainment are in fact M.brandonclark (talk · contribs) (who is clearly also 71.146.203.2 (talk · contribs) and who is clearly "Brandon Clark", Hot House Entertainment's erstwhile webmaster) and Hhbrent (talk · contribs) (who is equally clearly making no secret of being the Brent Smith, of "HH", mentioned in the article itself).
- It has even been pointed out that Benjiboi didn't actually write Hot House Entertainment as claimed, that being mostly the work of the aforementioned two; and didn't actually create, as claimed, that article, Sister Roma, or Steven Scarborough, all of which were created by Sfdrag (talk · contribs).
- It's been pointed out that people aren't doing their research.
On a further note, I point out the self-contradiction between saying that Benjiboi is "Sister Roma", and thus has a COI at Sister Roma and Hot House Entertainment, and that Benjiboi is "DJ Pusspuss" and thus has a COI at Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. and DJ Pusspuss. One cannot have both. The real names behind both personae, one of which has been bandied about in these discussions (but I'm not repeating), the other of which is both in the original version of Sister roma and easily verifiable from elsewhere, don't match. The editors trying for a blanket conflict of interest here should note that this is a mutually exclusive situation. There's either the one conflict of interest or the other, not both.
Uncle G (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Where has that claim be made? I see someone making a relationship link but nobody is saying they are the same person. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this "research" even going on? If User:Benjiboi does not wish to disclose his identity, and declares that he does not have a conflict of interest, it seems the extent to which we would need to assume bad faith to try to prove that he has a conflict of interest is quite extreme. His contributions don't get anywhere near disruptive, which would be a prerequisite for this sort of drama, in my opinion... If he's written an article that's not notable, we have procedures in place to deal with that. If he's edited articles in a way that reads less than neutral, we can deal with that. What's the point in all of this? user:J aka justen (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the current state of play is:

DJ Puss Puss - deleted at AFD
Sister kitty - deleted at AFD
Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence - multiple editors working on this and cleaning it up
Pink Saturday - I stubbed it and it's now NPOV
Trans March - needs eyes and sources checking, obvious promotional edits removed by me.
Sister Roma ???? Not looked at, no idea.
Hot House Entertainment ??? Not looked at, no idea.

--Cameron Scott (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humble attempt to demonstrate a problem

"[Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence] was largely written by Sister Kitty Catalyst of the Mother House in SF."[15] Forget about who that is, let's just pretend it's unknowable. At the least, this article was written by a member. Cool Hand Luke 18:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

she's wrong, it was written by Sister Dana who writes most of the Sisters history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.10.219 (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As has been pointed out to all you, this is not a witch-hunt. What you do off-site is your business. As for this board - It is for conflict of interest issues that require outside intervention, such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time. It is not for simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-COI breaches of neutral point of view policy.

As has been also pointed out none of those articles had untrue information as far as I'm aware - I certainly didn't add any on purpose if there is anything wrong on them. Meanwhile you seem to be looking to cast a greater and greater net of possible problems without actually showing any issue exists except by your novel original synthesis. Looking at number of edits might be helpful but an actual look at what I was doing on thise articles shows a much clearer picture of simply cleaning up other people's edits or in the Roma case, adding sourced content. Your increasingly shrill calls of concern ring quite hollow. Smallbones, you in particular seem anxious to simply assume bad faith at every turn. That bio of Catalyst? It seems it was first posted in 2005 and hasn't changed much since then. Then information there aligns with what was in her article; who cares what her day job is? Please stop the vague insinuations and generalized harassment. -- Banjeboi 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benji - it just doesn't work to say all this is my fault because I'm persecuting you. This fits in perfectly with the purpose of this board It is for conflict of interest issues that require outside intervention, such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time.' You appear to have been caught writing 2 autobiographies. It's extremely clear that paid editors are writing adverts on Wikipedia for gay porn. Your buddy above gave the perfect example, and it's an example with clear ties to the person you apparently wrote an autobiography about, and to you as the leading editor of the article. There's a clear case of a tendentious editor causing long term damage here. It's time you give us the truth and help clear up the damage that you've caused.

BTW on Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence you are the leading editor (226/66)

Also it is incorrect to say that I'm making "vague insinuations." I've been as direct as politeness and the rules allow, and all you can answer is that I'm "assuming bad faith." Smallbones (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming bad faith. On Wikipedia, tendentious carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete article content which is resisted by multiple other editors. There is no case of that here, at all. You have suggested and insinuated that I have been re-adding and restoring contested material - this is all based on bad faith WP:Outing efforts - which remains harassment. IMHO most of the porn articles are written by people in the industry and fans, I'm neither but you ... assume I must be. I'm the lead editor on tons of articles. Howabout LGBT? Want to slap a COI tag on that one too? Ridiculous, you obviously are escalating a personal gripe to outright hostility and simply wikistalking my work. Claiming a pattern of damage is nonsense but I'll assure you that everytime someone has harassed me in the past the same thing has generally happened, the articles they pick on in an effort to make a point improve. So whatever your motivation you will end up improving articles that I've shown an interest in, so for those articles' improvement I thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi's editing today has gone out of control, e.g. removing COI tags and budding edit wars. We have to move this discussion to a confidential format. Could an editor who knows how this is done please inform me? Examples of Benji today

Edit warring about COI tag at Sister Roma, starting at [16]

removing COI tags [17] [18] [19] and see his next edit there as well, and again there [20] [21] [22] [23] edit war starting at [24] Budding edit war starting at [25]

Example of a new editor claiming intimidation by Benjiboi at Sisters article, “Benji knows the rules and how to wield them like a weapon.” See user 1durphul’s comments at Talk:Sisters_of_Perpetual_Indulgence#Clean_up and part of the dispute at Talk:Sisters_of_Perpetual_Indulgence#501.28c.29.283.29_status_as_noted_on_other_articles_about_501.28c.29.283.29_orgs

Smallbones (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those COI tags were not based on any evidence, except for the fact that Benjiboy edited the article quite a lot. He was more than right to remove them in most cases (and to come clean, I removed one myself [26] with talk page explanation here [27]). I strongly suggest all involved editors (on both sides of this dispute) let go of all of these articles. Unwatch them, edit something else and let other editors (there will be plenty editors on most of those articles by now,due to by all the attention this has gotten) sort it out. Otherwise, this whole dispute will only turn more ugly I am afraid. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WT:COI

I write for a music review site called Roughstock. While the reputability of the site has never been questioned, I've been a bit afraid of citing my own single and album reviews in articles. The closest I've come so far to adding my own review is in Joey (song), where someone else added my review and I trimmed a little so that it didn't look like my review was receiving undue weight. WP:COI says "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." The site seems to conform to the policies — it has a somewhat bloglike format like The 9513, which was also declared reputable by various other editors; in addition, main Roughstock editor Matt Bjorke has reviewed for other publications such as About.com, and guest editor Michael Sudhalter also writes for Country Standard Time magazine. I think that the use of my review on "Joey" is neutrally worded. Would it be acceptable to cite my own reviews on song and album articles in a similarly neutral fashion? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest with the Peaberry Coffee article

I have been editing the Peaberry Coffee article tirelessly over the past several days. Peaberry Coffee, Inc. closed its doors. You can see the Denver Post article Denver's Peaberry Coffee chain closes shop. A user named javalover100 keeps undoing the changes which make reference to Peaberry closing. I have commented on javalover100's page, and have gotten no response. I believe there is a definite conflict of interest here, as my information is factual and straight from the cited article. I believe Wikipedia should be factual and up to date, not biased and false.

To add insult to injury, javalover100 doesn't use links correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N290 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible that there's a COI (probable even) but regardless of the COI or not, this person is clearly attempting to own the article. I'm leaving them a 3RR warning and will watch the page and revert, if they revert again it's getting reported to the noticeboard. Thanks for bringing this up. -- Atama頭 15:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough, they reverted again, so I went ahead and made a report at WP:AN3. -- Atama頭 16:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Javalover100 has been blocked for 24 hours, which is the standard for a person who has been reported for edit-warring for the first time. I'm hoping that either they will start talking about their edits on the talk page of the article or will give up what they're doing. I'm keeping the article on my watchlist (and I've also made some major edits to the article just because I thought they were needed). -- Atama頭 18:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New update, the article has been reverted twice by a brand new user, so I've started up a sockpuppet report here. -- Atama頭 23:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reverted once again, by a new user. I reverted to the changes made by Atama. When would it become appropriate to lock the article from all edits? N290 (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't request page protection at all, and I don't think it would be granted if asked. Page protection is usually for an article being abused by numerous anonymous or brand new accounts (semi-protection) or for an article that is being heatedly warred over by established editors (full protection). When an article is being abused by a single editor over and over, you block that editor. In this case the editor appears to be using sockpuppets to avoid the block, but I'm hoping the sockpuppet investigation report will take care of that. I'm keeping an eye on the page, and while I won't revert the new editors (I don't want to violate WP:3RR myself even though it could be argued that these reverts are vandalism) I'll continue to add any new puppets to the report if needed. I'll say this editor is making the job easy, all they are doing is making the same revert over and over again, so it's blatantly obvious who they are. -- Atama頭 01:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on why the article shouldn't be protected, look at the history of the article and look at all of the positive edits made, often by anonymous editors. I'd like to think that my edits to the article helped it somewhat also. Protecting the page might stop the abuse but it will also stop good editors from making it even better, so it's something that's only done as a last resort if nothing else will help. -- Atama頭 01:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:22wingheritageoffice and CFB North Bay

The user at User talk:22wingheritageoffice may have a conflict of interest at CFB North Bay, which appears to be the only article this account actively edits. From the username, it can be interpreted that this account is being used by an office of an establishment, possibly for promoting purposes. User is frequently adding unverifiable and unreferenced material, and cites himself as a reference, in direct violation with WP:OR. User also has no intent on proper use of WikiSyntax and correct template usage, and much of the text appears to be copied off an essay from another website, and is written in a oddly subjective manner. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if they edit again that you report them to WP:UAA as using a shared account, or an account that is meant to represent an organization rather than a person. It might be too stale to be reported right now unfortunately. -- Atama頭 22:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mensa1960 and Quizbowl

The user at User talk:Mensa 1960 has a conflict of interest at Quizbowl. User is Cheryl Claypoole Beall, the ex-wife of the proprietor of a particular quizbowl tournament, who still owns a financial stake in said tournament. After her attempts at washing the National Academic Championship page of all critical information led to that page's deletion, she has now moved on to the general quizbowl page. This user has an unavoidable ideological and financial COI in articles related to high school quizbowl. Bullofconfusion (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The user had self-identifed here:[28]. I can't see the edits from the National Academic Championship article, but the edits on Quizbowl so far have been her removing uncited and WP:WEASELly phrases from the article. (e.g. "Most" player consider buzzer-beaters bad, "Most" question companies omit those questions, HS tournaments "tend to attract stronger teams", that sort of thing). The user may very well have a COI in this area (though it could also be argued that she is a Subject Matter Expert), but as long as her edits are neutral and do not promote the entity she is affiliated with, nor are adverse to her competitors, then she is allowed to edit these types of articles, per the COI guidelines. As I said, I did not see the NAC article edits, but whitewashing criticism is certainly not allowed. In the case of the quizbowl article however, her edits all seem to be tempering some rather leading sentences that by all rights could have been deleted entirely as unsupported. Arakunem^Talk 15:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Conflict of interest - I have updated my user page to clarify my relationship to quiz bowl. I have no ownership stake or other current ties to my former spouse/company or to any other aspect of quiz bowl. My interest is in imparting factuality and a neutral point of view, which the article currently lacks. Mensa1960 (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to chime in to to say that i've been following the Quizbowl AfD and have put some work into improving the article. These quizbowl fanatics probably are Subject Matter Experts, they just need to tone down their hilarious bickering (I frankly picture people in MIT labs trash talking and coming to blows over some obscure scientific debate). In the last day or so, they do seem to be taking steps to improve the quizbowl article, which is great. --Milowent (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARRTAF

ARRTAF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ralph Petty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I first reported this user at WP:UAA, but the report was denied due to the admin not seeing a connection between the username and the content the user was creating, so the admin suggested I bring the issue here. I feel this user is using WP for promoting an entity. ArcAngel (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links for the user and the only article that they have edited so far. I've removed a speedy deletion tag as I think that the article does assert notability onto the person. I can't quite see the COI issue either. Can you explain why there is one?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs)

(ec) I agree with whoever denied the UAA report. I can't find anything that "ARRTAF" would be representing. There is an organization called ARRT but I don't see any relation between that organization and the edits that ARRTAF has made. What entity are they supposedly promoting? I see that their contributions (at least undeleted ones) are to the Ralph Petty article, but do you have any evidence or reason to suspect that this editor is personally connected to Mr. Petty aside from being a single purpose account? -- Atama頭 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any further evidence, no. Like I stated above, I felt AARTAF was promoting someone. I also don't see many third-party sources on the article page that establish notability. I initially thought he was part of the famed Petty racing clan. I also have not found any reliable sources as far as coverage goes for his artwork - maybe I am misinterpreting something? ArcAngel (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the COI noticeboard is for editors who have an obvious connection to whatever their edits are about, such as someone confirmed to be an employee of a company whose article they have removed criticism from, or a person who created an article about a person whose name matches their username (just a couple of examples). There should be some clear connection, not a suspicion (and I'm not even sure why you'd suspect, the article isn't overly promotional). If you think that someone is editing Wikipedia only for promotional purposes but you aren't sure, your best bet is to assume good faith until you have reason not to.

If you have specific concerns with the article itself, those concerns are best taken care of on the article's talk page. I see that you have a lot of experience in fighting vandals (awesome) so you should be able to recognize what is real vandalism and what isn't, and if this editor crosses the line into actual spam give the proper warnings and report to WP:ANI if necessary. -- Atama頭 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I can pretty well recognize vandalism on the spot, but some isn't so obvious. :) But as I said, another admin recommended coming here for this issue as he didn't see the same thing I did, so I thank you for your response. ArcAngel (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tate Publishing & Enterprises

Davedolphin (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account, has been attempting to remove the claim that Tate Publishing & Enterprises is a vanity press from the article [29] [30] [31]. I believe that this claim is both well-attested by two reliable secondary sources (in my preferred version of the article) and factually supported by the publisher's own web site (a vanity press is a press that asks authors to pay for or "invest" in their own books rather than paying authors for the privilege of publishing their books; Tate's web page states that they ask for such investments; therefore despite their denials they are a vanity press). I'm coming here because it seems likely that this account's non-neutral edits are due to a conflict of interest — whether it's as someone associated directly with the press or an author in denial seems irrelevant. Anyway, more eyes would be appreciated. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just did a little more research. Tate's "meet the staff" page lists Dave Dolphin as Director of Book Production. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a 3RR warning even though they've only reverted twice, just to make them aware of the policy against edit-warring. Removing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced promotional info is just not allowed. They need to discuss things on the talk page rather than trying to unilaterally push things onto the article. Oh, and yes there is a very clear conflict of interest here. -- Atama頭 17:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund

Resolved

– User name blocked – ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - MemFund (talk · contribs) is adding spam links and unreferenced material. Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left Welcome, Spam, and COI notices on the talk page, as none had yet been so left. Arakunem^Talk 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- AFAICS, they're adding links to the site http://www.theworkcontinues.org which is indeed the project's official site.

Now there are issues here: username, COI, reference formatting, lack of independent refs to name just a few. However this does seem like it would be a valid EL for the article (maybe just one of them), certainly not a spamlink. Coming here also seems a little excessive as a response, especially when the editor is clearly new and still has a blank talkpage.

Surely this is just the classic case of a well-meaning (not just GF but positively benevolent) new editor falling foul of our obscure ways of working and needing a little assistance in how we do things locally, not a tarring and feathering as An Evil Spammer(tm). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's my guess as well. The Spam notice is actually better termed a "possibly inappropriate external link" notice, so I'm hoping the tone of the templates doesn't scare them off. Arakunem^Talk 15:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a good beating with the WikiStick will see them off, it's usually enough. Damned newbies, coming over here and adding their nasty content all over the place! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User name blocked as a WP:SPAMNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

98.173.201.186 editing Seymour Duncan and commenting on talk page of same.

The editor(s) using this ip 98.173.201.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been questioning what they have seen as a bias towards EMG, Inc. and the relevant article there. the amount of questioning infers some sort of interest in the article. TorstenGuise (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of COI by this user at Seymour Duncan. It hasn't even edited the article since February. It did suggest a COI on your part back in June, but I see no evidence of that either. Rees11 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the lack of evidence on their part. Do a WHOIS and see who the ip is registered to. TorstenGuise (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not the whois, which shows the block belongs to Cox, it's the name resolution, which points to mail.seymourduncan.com. That seems a pretty clear COI. As I said, this IP has not edited the article since February, but I'll take a look at the older edits, and note this on the talk page. Rees11 (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy.com links added by Legacy employee

Cross-posted at WikiProject Spam: 68.20.235.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding external links to Legacy.com to biographies for months. After looking at the WHOIS data, it was determined that the IP is from Legacy.com. Smells like a COI and spam to me. Your thoughts? Willking1979 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a clear case to me. Maybe a report to WP:AIV is in order to block the IP? – ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are they really inappropriate links though? Looks like Legacy.com is a database of obits, and from what I can tell, there is no fee or subscription required. The IP is adding them as external links, and it seems to me that they add value to the article... Arakunem^Talk 16:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They may be appropriate but the user really should register an account and disclose the COI. Has anyone warned them? Rees11 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. "Organically" added links are different than the consistent, persistent editing by this COI editor. Also disturbing is that the descriptions the editor is using are misleading. Most are called Associated Press obits listed at major newspapers, but the links go to branded Legacy.com pages that duplicate the newspapers' pages. The site appears to have some sort of advertising/distribution/syndication agreements with the newspapers, but I see no need to use a commercial site selling scrapbook products over direct news sources with the same AP article. As there are almost a 1,000 links to Legacy.com pages, this is probably an issue that needs to be evaluated and dealt with one way or another as to its inclusion or appropriateness.

legacy.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Flowanda | Talk 04:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor with the same editing habits who was provided with welcome messages and COI and SPAM warnings:

Celebrinerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Flowanda | Talk 04:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Legacy.com links were spam as well when I first encountered them at Miriam Makeba. But in that case, Celebrinerd was simply trying to fix a link that had expired; see this message on my talk page. It seems that links to Associated Press stories often become dead links, and Legacy.com provides permanent copies of AP obituaries. I don't have a problem with Legacy.com links being used as sources, but I certainly don't like the thoughtless mass-adding of external links that seems to be going on here. Graham87 06:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Thoughtless" indicates no organized attempt to add Legacy obit links to Wikipedia. The edits of at least these two editors indicate otherwise. Flowanda | Talk 08:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Graham was referring to the fact that they may not have put much thought into understanding our policies or seeking consensus for widespread inclusion of Legacy links? In any event, it does appear as though these links can sometimes be helpful, although, I agree, we need to determine under what circumstances they can or should be included and communicate that to the accounts adding the links, dare I say it, thoughtlessly... ;) user:J aka justen (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant "thoughtless" as in "careless" or "hasty". Graham87 14:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Commercialism in Data Loggers article

Data logger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
121.216.121.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
63.255.173.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
64.122.168.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Two particular vendors consistently edit this page to add commercial links. I have been trying to police this page for two years, but they continue to post commercial links and statements. Request their accounts/IPs be banned (121.216.121.20,63.255.173.99,64.122.168.30). 173.10.212.9 (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some links above. Smartse (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the IPs have only made one edit each to the article and only this edit by 63.255 seems at all problematic - the IP is listed as belonging to this company. I don't really see the problem here to be honest, am I missing something? Smartse (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California Healthcare Institute

Resolved

– Blocked as spammer with promotional username. -- Atama頭 00:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicaliforniahealthcare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is adding names of board members to the article. Tckma (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Science

I am in the process of updating the article on the company Mad Science. I have disclosed the fact that I do work for the company, and I am doing my very best to make this article as objectionable as possible. I intend it to be an overview of the company, a description of its history and operations. I have posted information on the talk page of the article and mine as well. Obviously anyone can add or modify my edits at any time, and that's the beauty of Wikipedia. The previous article red more like an advertisement then my current edit, therefore I feel that the disclaimer above the article that states the possibility or conflict of interest should be removed. The disclaimer itself diminishes the articles validity, when in fact if I had kept the information to my self (being employed by Mad Science) that no one would have batted an eyelash.

If there are any steps I need to take to have the disclamer removed, please let me know Thanks for your time!

--Timthom2 (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not adspace. It is questionable whether this company meets WP:GNG it does not as it presently stands.Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right now there is a proposed deletion tag on the article. Might I assume that you don't want the article to be deleted? If so, edit the article and remove that tag, and you will be officially contesting the deletion. Proposed deletions cannot be controversial, or seriously objected to by anyone, or they are invalid. So if you don't want the article to be deleted, remove the tag. The article might still be deleted at some future date if it is brought before an articles for deletion discussion, so I suggest that you work to resolve the notability issues that the article currently has.

Just to let you know, while Wikipedia is an open project that anyone can edit (within restrictions) not every subject merits an article. For example, I personally haven't accomplished anything notable enough in my lifetime to justify having an article, and most people and companies would not qualify either. The general guideline to notability for article subjects can be read at WP:N, and there is another guideline specifically for companies and organizations at WP:CORP. The main way to show notability is to show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Did a major newspaper or magazine run a profile on the company? Something like that would help show that the company is notable enough for inclusion in the project.

As to the conflict of interest, by our guidelines at WP:COI it would be difficult to say that you don't have a conflict of interest. The guidelines suggest that you shouldn't edit the article directly. Having said that, there are no hard rules that say that you can't edit the article. If you do continue to edit the article, be sure that you understand the rules regarding original research and keeping a neutral point of view, as those are the biggest concerns that arise when a person edits an article while having a conflict of interest. Also remember that while you work for the company, neither you nor anyone else at the company own the article so take care not to control the content of the article. I don't currently see evidence that you've violated any of these rules and you seem sincere in wanting to improve the article so I don't personally have concerns about your actions at that article.

You've asked about the COI tag currently on the article. I'm going to leave a message for Dougweller, the editor who left the tag, and ask him to comment here. In my experience he is a good editor with good intentions and I'm sure he'd be willing to present any concerns he has about the article in a civil manner so that you can resolve them. Generally the COI tag means that there might be material in the article that should be cleaned up because it is too promotional, so even though you do seem to have a COI that tag might not be necessary.

I hope this clears things up a bit. As I said, you should remove the proposed deletion tag if you don't want the article to get deleted soon, and then work on trying to show how the article is notable. -- Atama頭 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off to bed but will look carefully at the article tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atma speaks truth. As the person who proposed the deletion of the article I have to say I have nothing against your company (which I have never previously heard of) and support science education for children vehemently and wholeheartedly. However that doesn't mean your company is notable. You said you had Globe and Mail references. Globe and Mail is a RS. Get those properly referenced in the article and if they prove to be appropriate and not puff pieces I'll pull the PROD myself.Simonm223 (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled the prod. Found a recent New York Times article, plus the CSI etc partnerships, the Globe article, etc. Also took off COI tag. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ellechris13

Ellechris13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- The user KHOU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked due to username violations and edits made to the article on the TV station KHOU. A short time after User:KHOU was blocked, User:Ellechris13 was created and immediately made the same edits to the KHOU article. I am concerned that the users are the same person and therefore COI exists. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true COI exists, but there is a bigger issue here - sockpuppetry, or the use of alternate accounts to violate Wikipedia policies. Try WP:SPI. Intelligentsium 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! --Nsaum75 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If KHOU was blocked for having a promotional username, then they are encouraged to either request an unblock to change their username, or create a new account with an acceptable username. Creating a new account isn't sockpuppetry to evade a block, it's conforming to WP:U. Going to SPI would be a mistake. -- Atama頭 00:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, actually they weren't blocked only for username violations, if that was the case then Template:Uw-softerblock would have been applied. They were blocked for spamming with a Template:Uw-spamublock, which is a hard block, and creating a new account is in fact a block evasion through sockpuppetry. So, never mind, SPI is totally warranted. -- Atama頭 00:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WT:COI

I write for a music review site called Roughstock. While the reputability of the site has never been questioned, I've been a bit afraid of citing my own single and album reviews in articles. The closest I've come so far to adding my own review is in Joey (song), where someone else added my review and I trimmed a little so that it didn't look like my review was receiving undue weight. WP:COI says "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." The site seems to conform to the policies — it has a somewhat bloglike format like The 9513, which was also declared reputable by various other editors; in addition, main Roughstock editor Matt Bjorke has reviewed for other publications such as About.com, and guest editor Michael Sudhalter also writes for Country Standard Time magazine. I think that the use of my review on "Joey" is neutrally worded. Would it be acceptable to cite my own reviews on song and album articles in a similarly neutral fashion? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping since no one seems to have an answer. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose the first question would be: Are you notable as a reviewer on that site? I don't mean necessarily WP:N notable, but would someone familiar with the site recognize you as a reviewer and give more weight to your review/opinion than a random guy in a chatroom for example? If not, then I would question its inclusion at this point. Yes, the site and the writers mentioned are notable, but you know what they say about inheritance. If the answer is Yes, then we can look at the COI implications: Are you paid for your work, would the site or yourself see any real-world benefit from having traffic sent there from the Wikipedia article, and so on. My initial feel here is that, solely from a COI perspective, citing your own reviews is ok in the way you have done (i.e. a Fact about an Opinion). I just think there could be Reliable Source issues to resolve before we get to COI territory. But I'm admittedly ignorant of the Country Music scene and what sources are reliable, etc.
  As an aside, there also still could be a possible Undue Weight issue. The reception section on Joey, for example, lists 6 reviews, yours being one of them (as well as being listed first, before the EW review... if they're in chrono order, than no problem, otherwise might be some UW here). I also don't think that using nicknames/screennames in an article is very encyclopedic, unless the person is universally known (now I am talking WP:N notable) by that nickname. Arakunem^Talk 20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Matt Bjorke said that he chose me to work for Roughstock because of my prominence on a message board and knowledge of the genre. Universal Music Group Nashville has even posted my review of a Jamey Johnson song on their website — that is most certainly proof that I have cred as a reviewer. I don't get paid for my work at Roughstock, but as for the reliability, other editors such as Caldorwards4, Eric444, Cloversmallrat, etc. have pointed to Roughstock as a reliable source for reviews. Regarding the order of the reviews, I was not the person who put my review of "Joey" first in the critical reception section, although I have moved it further into the paragraph so as to further avoid any accusations of undue weight. I have also given a test run on Honky Tonk Stomp, where I added another review before my own. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're getting the issue muddled by talking about notability and inherited notability. That's irrelevant. Undue weight, similarly, is not about which author is listed first in a list of citations. It's about which points of view are shown as major and which as minor. Note which policy WP:UNDUE redirects to.
    The question is whether "Ten Pound Hammer" is a reliable source in this particular field. And that involves answering all of the usual questions. So what are the answers, here? Uncle G (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Te Vaka Management

Resolved

– Indef-blocked for spamming and username violations. -- Atama頭 22:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Te Vaka Management is mass-editing articles about the band Te Vaka and related articles. I've left them a COI warning. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the COI, their edits introduce copyvio material into the articles (simply cutting and pasting reviews from other sites) and should be reverted on that basis. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user name is also obviously a violation of WP:U. That, combined with inappropriate external links and copyright violations aren't a good sign. The one good thing is that the band itself is clearly notable. -- Atama頭 19:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youtea and related articles

Ahertzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wut5880 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Youtea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Type Proanthocyanidin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tina Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two users appear to be the cofounders of a new start up Youtea. Wut5580 created the article and it was tagged for speedy deletion but then that was rejected. Ahertzy has since created A Type Proanthocyanidin which is about the product that Youtea sell. This was also added to the Urinary tract infection article by Ahertzy, the product they sell is aimed at treating UTIs. I don't have time at the minute to sort things out but it looks like Youtea isn't notable (AfD?) and that the A Type Proanthocyanidin article should be merged into Proanthocyanidin. Could someone take a look? Thanks Smartse (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD for Youtea is here. -- Atama頭 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added Tina Wu to the above list of problem articles, as it was created by Wu herself and subsequently edited by her, and has had notability and verifiability problems from when it was created. -- Atama頭 21:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and made some changes but don't have time to follow this. Ahertzy continues to edit after being warned. Rees11 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blancomusicsean and related projects

Blancomusicsean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Blanco Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BudNubac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SubMachena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other editors have tagged Blanco Music as G11 and BudNubac as A7 and the author has added "hangon"; I have put "notability", "primarysources" and "COI" tags on SubMachena for the moment, though Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL does not suggest much notability. JohnCD (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reported Blancomusicsean to WP:UAA for having a promotional username. -- Atama頭 17:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's clear that none of these articles even come close to meeting WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, or WP:N. I've proposed SubMachena for deletion as well. If any of these article deletions are contested I'll bring to AfD. -- Atama頭 17:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit: Center for Class Action Fairness

A public interest law firm I founded this year, the Center for Class Action Fairness, and the work I have done with it, is the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. I request that a neutral editor create the article.

Forbes, September 21, 2009, http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0921/outfront-tort-consumers-lawyer-tries-to-block-settlements.html
National Law Journal, July 10, 2009, http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432164378
Heritage Foundation, December 22, 2008, http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed122308a.cfm
New York Times, June 25, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/technology/25settle.html

Also:

Thank you, THF (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you go ahead and create the article in a sandbox you might have better luck. Thanks for bringing this to our attention and playing by the rules. Rees11 (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might take a stab at starting the article. WP:AFC is the place where you normally request that an article be created, but considering your circumstances this board was an appropriate place to make the request. -- Atama頭 01:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John McGoff

John McGoff - Created and maintained by a user named Jpmcgoff, and quite clearly seems to be a direct cut and paste from his promotional website. Perhaps my deletion header was a mistake, but I thought it should still be brought to attention here. -Bateau (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the speedy deletion category to G12 because even the author admits that it's a straight copy from the campaign web site, and the G12 is a no-brainer in this case. -- Atama頭 20:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=307807198

[3] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ombudswiki

[1]

[2]

[3]

Revision as of 07:44, 15 September 2009 edit ProEdits (talk \| contribs) 167 edits m →User:ProEdits ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:05, 15 September 2009 edit undo ProEdits (talk \| contribs) 167 edits →User:ProEdits: Justifiable reply defending myself against J929's attacks Next edit →
Line 401:		Line 401:

	:This isn't so much a COI issue as POV. I suggest you both stop the personal attacks and concentrate on the article. Stick to reliable secondary sources, no blogs or web sites that are not owned by mainstream news organizations. Remember, everyone has a POV, and that's ok. The problem arises when POV sneaks in to the article. [[User:Rees11\|Rees11]] ([[User talk:Rees11\|talk]]) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)		:This isn't so much a COI issue as POV. I suggest you both stop the personal attacks and concentrate on the article. Stick to reliable secondary sources, no blogs or web sites that are not owned by mainstream news organizations. Remember, everyone has a POV, and that's ok. The problem arises when POV sneaks in to the article. [[User:Rees11\|Rees11]] ([[User talk:Rees11\|talk]]) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

			J929: Some clarification of my position is clearly called for, so I reply. I am opposed to Sathya Sai Baba nowadays because I personally know young men who told me in detail how he abused them - including oral sex - and was implicated in the decisions to murder four intruders to his bedroom in 1993 and in the cover-up afterwards. I cannot doubt all this, though I dearly wished to doubt, having been a devotee of Sai Baba for 18 years, wrote many positive articles and a book about him and was the leader of the Sathya Sai Organization in Norway until 2000. You evidently would expect me to keep silent about this? That he is a living person does not absolve him from all criticism, when he is so notable as he is. My websites mostly contain critical analysis of his massive claims and his entire 'teachings' and shown that they are very largely bogus in that they are vague, conflict internally on countless issues and contain totally absurd ideas about science, history and religions, despite his massive claims of being omnipotent and much more. [[User:ProEdits\|ProEdits]] ([[User talk:ProEdits\|talk]]) 08:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards